X-Message-Number: 5618
From: Garret Smyth <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Don't talk about neurosuspension
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 02:32:10 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <4cvua6$> <>

Brad Templeton:
> Now I'm not going to rehash the neurosuspension argument here.

Well, why not? The whole body v neuro arguement often comes up, and people
often argue that there is something extra in the whole body. Now and again
I put in a posting asking for *any* evidence that memories are stored outside
the brain. As yet no one has answered this. The only good argument for whole
body is that you are already signed up for it and it is too much trouble to
change now.

I have been of the opinion for some time that only real men go neuro. Whole
body is for wimps!

> But I wonder if it might be wise for all cryonics organizations to simply
> not talk very much about it -- except of course in the contract.

I don't have my copies of the Richard Feynman books to hand, but I remember
being strongly affected by his comment on NASA's policy on space shuttle safety

and public relations. I'd be grateful if someone would post the exact quotation
here. It was something along the lines that if the truth is ignored in favour
of public relations then we deserve what we get, (but expressed much better!).

The UK is an interesting case of the neuro v whole PR thing. In America, and 
other parts of the world too, I hear, cryonics was at first presented as being
whole body, with neuro only whispered about, at least at first. Those of us
that signed up in '86 were all neuros, and we were honest about it. At first
this did make it harder. Back then the way I saw it was that Alcor did neuros,
and admitted it, ACS did them but tried to avoid talking about it, and CI
just wouldn't touch them.

While journos (and we have some pretty tough ones) loved neuro because it
gave a better story - "Chop my Head Off and Stick it in Deep Freeze!" one
headline went, they were rather suprised to find we had good arguements for
it. However, we weren't hiding anything, so we didn't appear shifty. I 
specifically recall one journo speaking to me again over three years later.
He was still cynical, but he was at least impressed by our consistency.

I feel its a bit craven to pretend neuro-suspension doesn't exist at all (okay,

I admit to being biased as a neuro sign up), but unless you ignore it completely
you have to talk about it one day, and let me tell you, the tabloids will get
the more excited about it if they think you have something to hide. 

Neuro-suspension is a valid thing to do, so even if you hide it for a while
(how long? a year? ten years? half a century?) you will have to explain it
sometime. As well as that you'll have to explain why you tried to cover it
up. How will that leave your carefully nutured image?

We have found from experience that telling people about cryonics is asking
them to believe five impossible things before breakfast. Telling them about
neuro-suspension only makes the total six. Go for the lot at once. You'll get
over the astounded disbelief stage quicker, and when people do start to see
your point of view they will have more to be impressed by.

Imagine if the first heart trnasplants had been represented as putting in an
extra heart and glossed over chopping out the patient's own heart and throwing 
it in a bucket for later disposal. Would it have made a difference? Perhaps
not, but it wouldn't have helped.

> Full body suspension is comprehensible to the world at large.

I think this is a bit of an exageration!

>  Neurosuspension
> requires a *much* greater understanding of the principles and an extra
> leap of faith.

A greater understanding helps, but it isn't required. Common views of human
biology, at least amongst our "target market", are that the heart is a pump,
the liver a chemistry lab, the kidneys are... well, jolly efficient kidney
machines, and the brain is where memory and personality lie.
 
> Indeed, neurosuspension is...   ... obviously
> *somewhat* riskier than full-body...

I have never heard any serious (or even just any) evidence for this.

> But I think the position should be that "We recommend full body suspension,
> though it is true that yes, some members, in order to save money on the
> cost of the suspension have elected to freeze only the brain

Nope. I for one did not sign up neuro to save money. Most of us hope to live
a long time before needing cryonics. The "natural" ageing process, though,
does *horrible* things to the body. Do you really want to come back "sans eyes,
snas teeth, sans everything"? Nope, you'd want new versions of your own organs,

but young and healthy. So do I. They're going to have to fix the damage somehow,
so you and I will need pretty similar technology, but the job will be harder 

when they do you, because if (when) they find a completely knackered organ - and
let's not forget that you've died of something - they won't be able to just 
remove it and replace it, they'll have to pretend they made the old one 
"better".

We are both going to need a lot of new tissue (or "regrown old tissue") but
the difference is that you will be lugging a lot of unecessary baggage.

For the record, I'm not against whole body, and not even as gung-ho neuro as
I may seem, but I feel the need to emphasise the neuro case because of the
"let's pretend it doesn't occur" attitude held by some. You have to overcome
public attitude sometime, and sooner is better than later. People are, albeit
slowly, getting used to the neuro arguement here. A while ago I was at a party 

and someone brought the subject of cryonics came up. The girl I had been talking

to turned to me and said, "Oh, how interesting! Whole body or just your brain?".

If there is any PR lesson to learn, it is that you mustn't let the press push
you into talking only about "head only" suspensions. Don't get rude, but firmly
talk about "brain only" suspensions. Quite often they will try to get back to
the Hammer Bros image of severed heads, usually by saying "But you do do the
rest of the head along with the brain, don't you?". "Well, yes of course. The
brain is the important bit, but it would be silly to remove the container that

nature provides for the brain. You wouldn't take eggs out of their shells before
you got them home form the supermarket, would you?"

TTFN


Garret

PS There is no truth in the rumour that I have a dotted line tattooed around
my neck along with the words "cut here". 

-- 
Garret Smyth

Phone:  0181 789 1045 or +44 181 789 1045


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5618